The Politics of Hope as unilateral disarmament

I think that's the thrust of the Clinton campaign's implicit (or maybe explicit) argument--that the Republicans aren't going to play nice just because Obama has galvanized a movement to reinvent politics, and that you need someone as dirty as they (the Clintons) are to advance a progressive agenda. That's what bitter partisans like Paul Krugman are on about too. You kind of have to admire someone who is able to capitalize on Americans' cynicism about the political process so effectively that she's been able to convince people that liberal ideals can only be achieved through a knife fight.

Thing is, for process-obsessives like me, Obama's promise of a better, cleaner, more transparent, more deliberative process of governance is pretty much the only reason to vote Democratic. I don't really want Bush-style tactics in the service of hugely problematic policies like universal health care. If my taxes are going to go up, I'd at least like to know that it's for a policy that comes out of a good process--one that balances the concerns and interests of people on both sides of the aisle. I don't want a policy that comes out of a process that looks anything like the way the Clinton campaign has been run--i.e., through secrecy, backstabbing, a total lack of discipline and, ultimately, reliance on shady and anti-democratic tactics.

I mean, if Clinton wins, it's a victory for the school of Rove and an affirmation of the Bush years, because she's basically promising us the same old crap, but with a higher price tag. She's repudiating the take-away message from her husband's years in power, which was, "a coherent political philosophy works." Until I see some evidence that she stands for more than just petty partisanship on behalf of short-sighted Great Society-style policies, I think I'm reserving my general election vote if she wins the nomination...